What did Paul mean to be Justified by Faith?

[Church_Militant]

THEOPHILUS†:

Church Fathers answer you:

“Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen.” - St. Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

And you cherry pick your way through the ECF and make assertions that such as St. John Crysotom was not Catholic, which is bunk since there was only the Catholic Church (even by name) from the end of the first century (See Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrnean Church, chapter 8. Since he was a close friend and disciple of the apostle John, his writings certainly bear some historical value in showing what was believed by them at that time)

We’ve all seen the cherry picked appeals by n-Cs to the ECF but again and again we’ve also seen that they are out of their context and so your proof texts fall flat. And worse, you simply choose to ignore all the statements of the ECF in articles such as this one: Reward & Merit .

You attempt to make a case for your errant new wind of doctrine which only came into being during the “reformation” and which required that Luther take liberties with his translations of the Word of God by editing out 11 books that had been canon since there was a canon and then adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28.

Luther’s private judgement was his only justification for adding the word “alone”: “You tell em what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word “alone” is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone’, sat right out to him: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing’. I will have it so and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.” (John L. Stodard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith, Rockford IL, Tan Books, 1990 page 137)

So you follow one who did not value the Word of God highly enough not to tamper with it in order to support his novel new wind of doctrine. I couldn’t do that with a clear conscience.

Also, since you clearly are not here asking questions about our most holy faith (or even Islam…Yeah, I read back through a good number of your posts.) I will post here the conduct rules so that you are reminded of what you agreed to when you came on board here. (The emphasis below is mine.)
CONDUCT RULES

1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
2. Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
3. Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
4. Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
5. Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
   ** 6. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
6. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.**
   Pax vobiscum,

 

[linus]

THEOPHILUS†:

Ok. I understand what you mean by sin not being the issue, because GOD took care of that.

But I don’t understand what you mean by “However, men will not have to stand judgment because of sins, but because they refuse to believe in the one who bore ALL their sins on the cross (Jn. 8:24; cf. Jn. 5:24).”

Let me just tell you why I don’t understand this. Because in the first place humans are condemned because they are sinners, as we can see in the first chapter of Romans. Well, even if Jesus didn’t come, we were condemned because of our sins.

For instance, those who never heard of Jesus, are they condemned or not?

THEOPHILUS†

That’s a fair question. Refusing to believe in the One who bore ALL their sins of course is narrowed down to this dispensation with the coming of Christ and the preaching of the cross. But the basis of salvation has always been Christ’s death (Rom. 3:25); the requirement, faith; the object of faith, the one true God; but the content of faith changed with divine revelation (progressive).

Even before the 1st Advent of Christ, faith in the one true God is what saved a man: Able, Enoch, Noah and his family, Abraham, David, the prophets, etc. God does not withhold light from anyone who truly seeks him. Paul testified of that (Acts 17:27). Of course God knew man would sin, and that the remedy for ALL sin would be the sacrifice of His beloved Son. So sin was really never the issue, but FAITH was and is. "Abraham BELEVED God and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness." Though he himself didn’t believe directly in Christ and the work He accomplished on the cross, yet he is called the father of all who believe.

As you stated correctly in a previous post. Righteousness is the issue before an infinitely holy God. ALL sins were dealt with once and for all on the cross (Jn. 1:29), but righteouness comes FROM GOD on the BASIS of FAITH alone. This was just as true in Old Testament times as it is now in New.

That’s why I have a general fear for Catholicism. It tends to teach that righteousness, ultimately, is merited rather than imputed THROUGH FAITH ALONE. A “righteousness from God on the basis of faith.” For this reason no Catholic believes (nor can believe) he HAS eternal life now. And rather than believe God’s Word that Christ made purification of ALL sins (Heb. 1:3), they’re told they must yet suffer themselves for their own sins (non-mortal) in “purgatory.”

 

[linus]

THEOPHILUS†:

What does Irenaeus have to say about this topic? Let’s see:

"Human beings can be saved from the ancient serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead." - Irenaeus (Against the Heresies, IV, 2, 7).

Though it’s a good quote to help prove that salvation through faith alone is older that 500 years (in fact as old as Able and the Scriptures), but I find it tragic Catholics always want to appeal to non-inspired writings to prove their case. Though Irenaeus was right about salvation by faith alone, he was wrong about “the tree of martyrdom.” It’s very important to understand that Jesus was not a martyr. Ultimately, no one took His life, He gave it. And He took it up again.

 

[linus]

Kurt G.:

And, as pointed out by Gardens, you have openly misinterpreted the Rich Man passage, Linus.

1. The question posed was “What good must I do (not we) to gain eternal life?” He asked a personalized question, and Jesus gave him a personalized answer, knowing ahead of time his love of possessions. Jesus’ answer would have no direct application for a destitute street beggar, would it?

And so by your interpretation one must keep the 10 Commandments PLUS any unique, personal requirement demanded by Christ. What personal requirement has Christ required of you Kurt? And from where are you informed of this personal requirement that you, personally, may attain eternal life?

If what you interpret is true, then we’re all in dire need of this *personal * divine revelation or none of us will attain eternal life, providing we don’t walk away as the rich man did.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Linus - Nobody suffers for their sins in Purgatory. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Purgatory is.

I must also point out that not one of the passages you cite says anything about “all” sins, though of course Christ is the remedy for all sins. This is similar to how you insist on adding the word “alone” after faith, when it is never once actually there (except, of course as the end of the phrase “not by faith alone!”)

Also:

Theophilus:

Demons believe that God exists. Demons believe that Jesus died to save us. Is their faith the real Christian faith, the living faith that saves? Are demons obedient to God?

Yes demons are obedient to Jesus and if you don’t think so you need to re-read your Bible.

Seeing as scripture is all that really matters to you when it comes down to it, I’ll just address some of the Scriptures I’ve seen posted since I was here last…

“Phi 3:9 and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through faith in Christ–the righteousness from God based on faith.”

This sounds good, but read a little further:

Phi 3:10-15 “My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection from among the dead. Not that I have already reached the goal or am already fully mature, but I make every effort to take hold of it because I also have been taken hold of by Christ Jesus. Brothers, I do not consider myself to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead, I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus. Therefore, all who are mature should think this way. And if you think differently about anything, God will reveal this to you also.”

St. Paul simply destroys any prospect of “assurance of salvation” here, and tells us that all who are mature in faith should be of like mind. In fact, he even tells us that he has “true faith,” as you would put it, because he says Christ has already taken hold of him. Even so, he still doesn’t know if he is going to Heaven or not! This is Paul speaking! If St. Paul didn’t even know his own fate, we certainly can’t claim to. If true faith really inspires the works that Jesus says we must have (Matt. 19:18, John 5:29, Rev. 20:12) and that St. Paul tells us we must have (Rom. 2:6-8), then Paul could not both say that Jesus has control of Him and that he is unsure of his own fate.

Acts 14:15 "“Men! Why are you doing these things…”

Read just above, and you’ll see what Paul is refering to:

Act 14:13-14 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the town, brought oxen and garlands to the gates. He, with the crowds, intended to offer sacrifice. The apostles Barnabas and Paul tore their robes when they heard this and rushed into the crowd, shouting:"

The “these things” Paul is talking about are the old Jewish animal sacrifices. Everybody was trying to follow the old Jewish laws, which is what Paul was so constantly fighting against. Paul does not condemn following the commandments put forth by Christ. (In fact, this very same misunderstanding so often leads Muslims to conclude that Jesus was purely Jewish and Paul invented Christianity singlehandedly!)

 

[Lazerlike42]

Quote:
Originally Posted by THEOPHILUS†
What does Irenaeus have to say about this topic? Let’s see:

“Human beings can be saved from the ancient serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead.” - Irenaeus (Against the Heresies, IV, 2, 7).

Though it’s a good quote to help prove that salvation through faith alone is older that 500 years (in fact as old as Able and the Scriptures), but I find it tragic Catholics always want to appeal to non-inspired writings to prove their case. Though Irenaeus was right about salvation by faith alone, he was wrong about “the tree of martyrdom.” It’s very important to understand that Jesus was not a martyr. Ultimately, no one took His life, He gave it. And He took it up again.

Irenaeus is saying nothing contradictory to the Catholic Church, which also says that only through believing in Christ can we attain salvation. If I tell you that only with the sunlight can a plant grow, that doesn’t mean I’m telling you it doesn’t need a little water, too. I’m not big on fathers, but I don’t doubt that somebody will post a quote from Irenaeus wherein he says that works are required.

As far as quoting uninspired writings, I personally think it’s beneficial to quote from men who personally knew, spoke to, and most importantly learned from the Apostles.

 

[Lazerlike42]

linus:

And so by your interpretation one must keep the 10 Commandments PLUS any unique, personal requirement demanded by Christ. What personal requirement has Christ required of you Kurt? And from where are you informed of this personal requirement that you, personally, may attain eternal life?

If what you interpret is true, then we’re all in dire need of this *personal * divine revelation or none of us will attain eternal life, providing we don’t walk away as the rich man did.

You are putting things into his statement that simply aren’t there. All Kurt is doing is answering an objection that you raised that we had not personally sold all of our posessions. His point is that the rich man’s posessions were personally holding him back from giving himself to Christ. There are two truths in that story: a personal truth for the rich man, and a general truth for us. The personal truth is that the rich man’s money was holding him back from Christ (as he proved). The general truth for us is that we must devote ourselves fully to Christ and eliminate anything that is holding us back from giving ourselves to Him. The reason Jesus told the man he needed to give up all his money was because He knew he wouldn’t. If the man had a state of mind in which he would have simply responded “sure” to the command to give away all his money, he would not have needed the command in the first place. Just as Jesus tells us we must not even put our own family before Christ, He is telling us once more we must put Christ above everything, and if there is anything that we would not give up for Christ, be it our money, our loved ones, or even our own life, then we must free ourselves from that attachment, and probably give that very thing up because it is keeping us from Christ. “He who hates his life will save it, and he who loves his life will lose it.”

 

[Lazerlike42]

Everybody seems to keep bringing up Abraham, so lets do a quick review of Scripture.

We first hear about Abram when he was born in Genesis 11. In Genesis 12, he is already 75 years old. He is listening to God, so he clearly has faith by this point. He probably had it before this, but we know for sure he has faith in Genesis 12, because he hears and obeys God. In Genesis 15 is when we hear about Abram being credited as righteous (15:6). Protestants point to James 2:22, which quotes this, where it says, “Abraham believe God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” But when was he justified?

James 2:21 - “Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?”

Not only does it specifically say works justified Abraham, but it says when: when he offered Issac, which didn’t happen until Genesis 22. Abraham had faith all through Genesis 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. It wasn’t until Genesis 22 when he was justified, though, by works.

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Church Militant:

** 6. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.**
Pax vobiscum,

1. I am not promoting anything. The Gospel is not a product to sell…
2. I respect your faith, but I am not a Roman Catholic.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

linus:

That’s a fair question. Refusing to believe in the One who bore ALL their sins of course is narrowed down to this dispensation with the coming of Christ and the preaching of the cross. But the basis of salvation has always been Christ’s death (Rom. 3:25); the requirement, faith; the object of faith, the one true God; but the content of faith changed with divine revelation (progressive).

Even before the 1st Advent of Christ, faith in the one true God is what saved a man: Able, Enoch, Noah and his family, Abraham, David, the prophets, etc. God does not withhold light from anyone who truly seeks him. Paul testified of that (Acts 17:27). Of course God knew man would sin, and that the remedy for ALL sin would be the sacrifice of His beloved Son. So sin was really never the issue, but FAITH was and is. "Abraham BELEVED God and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness." Though he himself didn’t believe directly in Christ and the work He accomplished on the cross, yet he is called the father of all who believe.

As you stated correctly in a previous post. Righteousness is the issue before an infinitely holy God. ALL sins were dealt with once and for all on the cross (Jn. 1:29), but righteouness comes FROM GOD on the BASIS of FAITH alone. This was just as true in Old Testament times as it is now in New.

That’s why I have a general fear for Catholicism. It tends to teach that righteousness, ultimately, is merited rather than imputed THROUGH FAITH ALONE. A “righteousness from God on the basis of faith.” For this reason no Catholic believes (nor can believe) he HAS eternal life now. And rather than believe God’s Word that Christ made purification of ALL sins (Heb. 1:3), they’re told they must yet suffer themselves for their own sins (non-mortal) in “purgatory.”

Thank you, dear linus. I see clearly what you mean about the Old Testament and the New Testament. Yes, of course, no one can be saved without faith.

But I guess you didn’t explain much about those who NOW have never heard about Jesus. Anyway, I think this is another topic. I find your answer enough for this topic.

Thank you again.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

linus:

Though it’s a good quote to help prove that salvation through faith alone is older that 500 years (in fact as old as Able and the Scriptures), but I find it tragic Catholics always want to appeal to non-inspired writings to prove their case. Though Irenaeus was right about salvation by faith alone, he was wrong about “the tree of martyrdom.” It’s very important to understand that Jesus was not a martyr. Ultimately, no one took His life, He gave it. And He took it up again.

Irenaeus was a human like me and you, brother. We all do mistakes.

As for the case of “the tree of martyrdom”, I guess this may be discussed in another thread. Anyway, Jesus Himself had the authority to give His life and to take it again, but He didn’t commit suicide.

Thank you, dear linus. I am learning much of what you are writing.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[Church_Militant]

6. I am not promoting anything. The Gospel is not a product to sell…

1. I respect your faith, but I am not a Roman Catholic.

THEOPHILUS†

THEOPHILUS†

Rules 6 has to do with promoting your own agenda. In your case it means the agenda you seem to be promoting that everyone should believe as you do and that the Catholic Church is wrong. This forum is not here as a platform for you to attempt to evangelize Catholics away from their faith, there are plenty of non-Catholic and secular forums for that.

Originally Posted by THEOPHILUS†
Friend, you don’t need to write much to tell me that Roman Catholics believe we must come to Jesus with FULL hands.

As for God, He says that we must come to Him through Jesus Christ with the EMPTY hands of faith.

Don’t you realise that before being saved from spiritual death, you are dead in sins, so you can’t present to God fruits of life?

THEOPHILUS†

Posts like this show that you prefer to preach to us as opposed to discuss or gain information about Catholicism. As I said, I looked back over your posts and you even try to tell the Muslims what they believe, the same way you attempt to tell us what we believe. This is just another example of your agenda driven postings.

If you respect the Catholic faith you have a poor way of displaying it. Respect does not mean that I attempt to prove it wrong in my every interaction with Catholics.

Furthermore, you chose to ignore all the evidence that I offered and respond to only a part of my post. What’s that about? Guilty conscience?

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Lazerlike42:

Yes demons are obedient to Jesus and if you don’t think so you need to re-read your Bible.

That’s an interesting way of explaining the CHRISTIAN obedience…

How are demons obedient to God, dear Lazerlike42? They are doing His Will, because God will accomplish His will whatever happens and whatever the rebellion of the Evil. But is Satan Satan because he is not in rebellion? What is rebellion other than disobedience in its worst form?

If demons are obedient to God in the sense of the obedience of Christian faith, then do you think all humans are now in faith? Don’t you know that all humans cannot do anything out of the Will of God. For God is Sovereign.

Seeing as scripture is all that really matters to you when it comes down to it, I’ll just address some of the Scriptures I’ve seen posted since I was here last…

“Phi 3:9 and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through faith in Christ–the righteousness from God based on faith.”

This sounds good, but read a little further:

Phi 3:10-15 "My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection from among the dead

. Not that I have already reached the goal or am already fully mature, but I make every effort to take hold of it because I also have been taken hold of by Christ Jesus. Brothers, I do not consider myself to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead, I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus. Therefore, all who are mature should think this way. And if you think differently about anything, God will reveal this to you also."

1. Do you think there is anyone who will NOT reach the resurrection from among the dead?
2. Where did I say that sanctification is optional?

St. Paul simply destroys any prospect of “assurance of salvation” here, and tells us that all who are mature in faith should be of like mind. In fact, he even tells us that he has “true faith,” as you would put it, because he says Christ has already taken hold of him. Even so, he still doesn’t know if he is going to Heaven or not! This is Paul speaking!

I guess you have first to answer whether ALL humans will have the resurrection from among the dead or not… Maybe you think Paul was afraid not to attain the resurrection from among the dead…

And if you don’t want to be sure Jesus can really give you life, that’s your problem. But God’s promise is clear.

If St. Paul didn’t even know his own fate, we certainly can’t claim to. If true faith really inspires the works that Jesus says we must have (Matt. 19:18, John 5:29, Rev. 20:12) and that St. Paul tells us we must have (Rom. 2:6-8), then Paul could not both say that Jesus has control of Him and that he is unsure of his own fate.

“For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” ( Philippians 1:21 )

Seems that Paul is SURE that death is gain for him…

Acts 14:15 "“Men! Why are you doing these things…”

Read just above, and you’ll see what Paul is refering to:

Act 14:13-14 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the town, brought oxen and garlands to the gates. He, with the crowds, intended to offer sacrifice. The apostles Barnabas and Paul tore their robes when they heard this and rushed into the crowd, shouting:"

The “these things” Paul is talking about are the old Jewish animal sacrifices.

The people in Acts 14:13-14 were not Jews…

Everybody was trying to follow the old Jewish laws, which is what Paul was so constantly fighting against. Paul does not condemn following the commandments put forth by Christ. (In fact, this very same misunderstanding so often leads Muslims to conclude that Jesus was purely Jewish and Paul invented Christianity singlehandedly!)

Paul didn’t condemn the Old Testament sacrifices also. But he said that the Law cannot save anyone.



THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Lazerlike42:

Everybody seems to keep bringing up Abraham, so lets do a quick review of Scripture.

We first hear about Abram when he was born in Genesis 11. In Genesis 12, he is already 75 years old. He is listening to God, so he clearly has faith by this point. He probably had it before this, but we know for sure he has faith in Genesis 12, because he hears and obeys God. In Genesis 15 is when we hear about Abram being credited as righteous (15:6). Protestants point to James 2:22, which quotes this, where it says, “Abraham believe God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” But when was he justified?

James 2:21 - "Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

Not only does it specifically say works justified Abraham, but it says when: when he offered Issac, which didn’t happen until Genesis 22. Abraham had faith all through Genesis 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. It wasn’t until Genesis 22 when he was justified, though, by works.

Yes, Abraham was justified by his works before HUMANS, “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.” ( Romans 4:2 ) As I said before, humans cannot know the hearts. So the obedient works of Abraham showed that he had genuine faith.

I would like to call your attention to the fact that in James 2:21 we don’t read that Abraham was justified by faith AND works, but by works…

But as for God who knows the hearts, Abraham was justified by faith long before he offerred Isaac. By the way, he didn’t sacrifice Isaac…

THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Church Militant:

THEOPHILUS†

Rules 6 has to do with promoting your own agenda. In your case it means the agenda you seem to be promoting that everyone should believe as you do and that the Catholic Church is wrong. This forum is not here as a platform for you to attempt to evangelize Catholics away from their faith, there are plenty of non-Catholic and secular forums for that.

What’s the name of this section? APOLOGETICS… And there is a section for NON-CATHOLICS…

The Catholic Church is not wrong. The Roman Catholic Church has false teachings, and that’s why there is a section on this site called “APOLOGETICS” where we can discuss how it is wrong or how it is not.

Anyway, we are off topic now. I can’t discuss this here.

Posts like this show that you prefer to preach to us as opposed to discuss or gain information about Catholicism.

Apologetics does NOT mean just gaining information.

As I said, I looked back over your posts and you even try to tell the Muslims what they believe, the same way you attempt to tell us what we believe. This is just another example of your agenda driven postings.

If you looked well without any glasses, you would see that I always try to make people really understand what they really believe so that I may discuss with them. Or else Muslims will accuse us of polytheism without knowing that they also believe the Word of God is ONE with God. This is not what I say, but this is what Muslim scholars teach.

Anyway, off topic again. Can’t you write me a private message about all this? We are going off topic, dear friend.

If you respect the Catholic faith you have a poor way of displaying it.

Do you think respect means embracing your beliefs?

Respect does not mean that I attempt to prove it wrong in my every interaction with Catholics.

So maybe for you APOLOGETICS means proving it right…

Furthermore, you chose to ignore all the evidence that I offered and respond to only a part of my post. What’s that about? Guilty conscience?

Respect me and don’t say that I have a guilty conscience.



THEOPHILUS†

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having strayed from the topic, this thread is now closed.